The High Court of Delhi stayed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) order imposing the penalty on the Mack Soft Tech Resolution Professional. Stay is subject to Mohan Lal Jain making a deposit of Rs 25,00,000 with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.
The petitioner, Mohan Lal Jain was appointed Insolvency Professional (IP) of Mack Soft Tech Private Limited against which the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated and an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) appointed.
As for the petitioner, he is said to have taken over as the IP only. The petitioner is alleged to have violated the terms of moratorium inasmuch as he is allowed some amounts to flow out to HDFC Bank in violation of the provisions of IBC.
After proceedings were initiated by IBBI, the Petitioner was found to be in violation of IBC and its Regulations and a penalty of Rs. 34,22,500 i.e. 25% of the fee received by him, was imposed.
The petitioner contended that there was no violation of any term of the moratorium as the monies were remitted from the escrow account maintained by HDFC Bank, which was not under his control. It was added that the Petitioner did not take any decision of his own but only followed the past decisions taken by his predecessor and the Committee of Creditors.
The single Judge Bench of Justice AK Chawla in a petition moved by Mohan Lal Jain, Petitioner, in view of the submissions, the Court issued notice to IBBI and HDFC Bank and sought their counter-affidavits within four weeks.
“Till then, taking into account the totality of the facts and the circumstances, the operation of the impugned order stays subject to the petitioner depositing within 10 days from today a sum of Rs.25 lacs with the respondent no.1 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India,” the court further added.
The Court directed that the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank for an initial period of one year. The deposit would be disbursal subject to any further orders that may be passed by the Court, it was clarified. The matter would be heard next on September 4..Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment